Az Draw Changes-Online Draw

[bubbas]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-09 AT 09:38PM (MST)[p] This is point one of a five point proposal regarding changes to the Arizona Draw Process, Online Draw. These proposed changes are a culmination of research into other state draw systems and diversified discussion. There will be a separate thread for each point so please try to keep each response limited to the proper thread to make it as organized and concise as possible. There are no dumb or unnecessary opinions and comments so please give your opinion and feedback. However, it will most constructive if opinion's are attempted to be supported and expressed by logical and respectful means. Through everyone's perspective we should be able to come up with a good census as to what may be good for the Sportsmen of Arizona.

1. ONLINE DRAW PROCESS-On the surface, there seems to be no reason for the draw not to be online. There would not need to be a correction period because errors would be caught while entering info on the computer before being processed, aside from entering in an unintentional hunt number. There is no way to prevent this (however see point 2-TAG RETURN POLICY). The only arguments I have heard against the online process are selfish ones....people feel they will have better draw odds with paper apps because less people SUPPOSEDLY apply when money has to be paid up front, like with a check. Again, I feel this is selfish but hey it's a selfish world, so there are ways to still require fees at time of application online. Other states, like Colorado and now New Mexico, have online draws where the fees are collected via credit card online at time of application. It has been mentioned that, in Arizona, charging a credit card for a product without actually receiving a product is not legal. I have my doubts as to the veracity of this statement so if a qualified person could clarify this, please chime in. If this is true then debit cards could still be used or an electronic check process where a routing number and bank account is entered. Both options are viable and realistic. If there some who chose not to use this method they could still apply via paper like was done in years past. The obvious benefits would be less rejected applicants (may considered a con for some), more convenience, less manpower by The Department, if set up properly should make actual drawing more streamlined and efficient equating to faster results, an electronic recording of the actual drawing process to deter corrupt internal practices, and potentially more income to the Department.

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 11:06AM (MST)[p]Bubbas, I do totally agree with you on this, there is no REAL reason for no online draw. It seems as if G&F want to make it more difficult for people to apply and to afford all at once.
I believe G&F is still bitter towards NR's and the USO lawsuit.
I don't think the tag return is valid, but that is my opinion. The draw is screwed as it is, a tag return and selling, or another draw for the left overs would only complicate matters worse. You will also have people giving tags back becuase they can't make the time or they think it won't get the rain, or a multitude of other reasons, but claim it was accidental.

 

[billythekid]

>LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09
>AT 11:06?AM (MST)
>
>Bubbas, I do totally agree with
>you on this, there is
>no REAL reason for no
>online draw. It seems as
>if G&F want to make
>it more difficult for people
>to apply and to afford
>all at once.
>I believe G&F is still bitter
>towards NR's and the USO
>lawsuit.
>I don't think the tag return
>is valid, but that is
>my opinion. The draw is
>screwed as it is, a
>tag return and selling, or
>another draw for the left
>overs would only complicate matters
>worse. You will also have
>people giving tags back becuase
>they can't make the time
>or they think it won't
>get the rain, or a
>multitude of other reasons, but
>claim it was accidental.

what is wrong with that? a "tag turn in policy" does not complicate the draw. look at UT. they seem to have a hold on this process. i believe 30-378 explained this in the original post. in brief he said something along the lines as this. each application is assigned a RANDOM, LOL!!! number in the draw. if there are 100 tags in a unit they take applications starting at 1 going on to 2,3,4 etc. until the tags are accounted for. if someone decided to turn his tag back in, then the next available applicant will get the opportunity. simple as that.

the process in which to carry this out is simple. the only debate is to determine how long one has to make is decision post draw, i.e. 1wk, 2wk, ..........

 

[maddglasser]

billy-go argue with a freakin stop sign! Those are the red ones.

 

[billythekid]

>LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09
>AT 11:06?AM (MST)
>
>Bubbas, I do totally agree with
>you on this, there is
>no REAL reason for no
>online draw. It seems as
>if G&F want to make
>it more difficult for people
>to apply and to afford
>all at once.
>I believe G&F is still bitter
>towards NR's and the USO
>lawsuit.
>I don't think the tag return
>is valid, but that is
>my opinion. The draw is
>screwed as it is, a
>tag return and selling, or
>another draw for the left
>overs would only complicate matters
>worse. You will also have
>people giving tags back becuase
>they can't make the time
>or they think it won't
>get the rain, or a
>multitude of other reasons, but
>claim it was accidental.

are you having difficulty coming up with reason as to why a tag turn in option might complicate the draw for the worse. please explain. what is wrong with folks turning their tags back in b/c lack of moisture or other reasons? please enlighten me.

 

[maddglasser]

billy the signs are red and octagon shaped! They have 4 letters
S-T-O-P I am sure you can find one now.

 

[billythekid]

might not be quite as bright as you. still having difficulty explaining yourself???? not trying to argue, just looking for some insight on your train of thought. it seems as though this issue could be black and white, with a shade of grey. why so colorful to u?

 

[maddglasser]

Just see no sense in arguing anymore. The system sucks and you guys can change it. Let me know when these ideas go to the commision.

 

[billythekid]

the only way to get it to the commission is to get a group together that agree on the issues. strength in numbers. i think the system sucks to. do we really disagree that much? a starting point is to hash out the differences before going to the commission in hopes that we will have a group of people with thought out proposals.

 

[mesquitehunter]

I wish we would go back to the online draw It was more convenient. I'm not in favor of the tag return policy.

 

[azoutback]

I hope they never go back to the online apps. If you really want to apply, you will. Paper apps wont stop you. But online apps makes it easier for people who dont take it as seriously to apply, when they might not otherwise.

If they did go back to online they should charge all fees up front.

 

[krp]

Online draw if they can charge fees up front also.

I live 4 miles from a G&F office and always drop them off but think a online option should be available to those who want it.

Kent

 

[HillbillyNnevada]

I say go back to online but keep the entire tag amount upfront. Convienence while sorting the serious applicants from the posers.

 

[bubbas]

The Online Draw change seems to be the most agreed upon by sportsmen here. For every 1 that opposes it there seems to be 5 that are for it (didn't count but close enough). We all seem to agree also that to eliminate uncommitted applying by Joe's 90 yr old Grandma (wink, wink) that the fees should be charged up front. This is very realistic and should be instituted relatively easily.

Personally, this is one of those points where I am uncertain why the Game and Fish is still doing paper apps. On one hand, I think they are still doing paper apps because it allows them to manipulate the draw without any legal record and thus evidence of their manipulation, or they just got shell shocked by the whole USO lawsuit and instinctively went into "old school" protective mode. On the other hand, I would think they would want to add the convenience and immediate funds authorization afforded by the online draw. Whatever the reasons I don't think any of them are in the best interest of the Sportsmen but rather The Department. We all agree....that is backwards!

Maddglasser, we did well to at least to come to an understanding with the "Hold Over Point" and see that there is at least some worth there, even if it would maybe need to get hashed out and refined a little more. I do not expect the same to happen on all points but I would be curious as to your thoughts on the previous discussions regarding the "tag return policy". The lengthy in depth discussion is found under my original "general thread. to get a good understanding of the most polarizing philosophies or arguments just read the posts by Bubbas and Javihammer. You will see that like our interactions...it takes a little while to warm up to my communication style (sorry, comes off as know it all at first but really I am just trying to effectively express the ideas so we can all be on the same page as far as talking about the same things). But in the end Javi, who is an intelligent person, went from 100% against the thought of ANY tag return policy to at least seeing that there was merit and value to some sort of tag return policy. The exact benefits that could be gained by many different groups are given which is not aparent on the surface. When you have some time to waste, LOL, please read and let me know what you think. I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks

 

[wetmule]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 08:12PM (MST)[p]It's been well researched and established that AZGFD charging upfront for online fees doesn't work for them or more specifically the BANK they use to process all the fees.
Personally I'd like to only see a system where fees are charged upfront. Without upfront fees you have alot of people applying because it is easy and convenient,not necessarily because they are dying to hunt here or a lifelong dream. Also probably a % of peta types that want no one using the tags, and if it's cheap and easy I would imagine a few sheep tags and other prized permits will be in the hands of the Sierra Club.

 

[bubbas]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 08:33PM (MST)[p]Wetmule,
I for one would love to see this well researched and established evidence you say prevents the Game and Fish from providing an online draw. I am not saying you are the lying just that you may not be the primary source here may just be passing on 2nd hand information, which again would be why I would like to see this evidence or at least an official representative of the Game and Fish state this official stance. The problem is just like when the draw is about to come out, everyone knows somebody in the Department who passes on different information as to when the draw results are going to be up when the truth is..... the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. This is a consistent with and a reflection of The Commission's secretive, inefficient manner in which they conduct business. Do you know that I have called The Department before to get clarification on a statute before and when I spoke to 3 different people I got 3 different "interpretations" of the statute? But the Commission would have no problem revoking your license if you followed the interpretation that was not the one they chose to follow on the day they met on the issue. You see the decisions they make are dependent on the days they meet on. I haven't quite figured the routine out yet but once I do maybe we can actually wait until the "open to discussion" day to present new ideas, LOL!

Sorry, I digress. EVEN IF, and that is a huge IF, your reason were the case there are multiple and be a very realistic solutions to overcome this road block.....If they really wanted to.

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 09:21PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 09:01?PM (MST)

Bubba,
I believe the tag return policy would mearly turn into a scouting of sorts. So many app type business's that would allow them to have a cache so to speak of of hunters. USO has over 6,000 applicants for AZ, if 1 hunter couldn't go the chance their other hunter could is threatening to me, and that hunter that gave up his tag would have no recourse. It would be simple for a large entity to completely swindle the system. Now add in Carter, and Cabela's, they could ultimately monopolize the draw! Right now the way it is gives more assurance to this not happening.

Also by having no turn in, we see, who really wants to hunt, not just the most points to hunt. Sure we all want to draw on a great year, but that is the risk we all take when applying. If things "dry up" that should not mean you can turn in your tag, suck it up and hunt hard like everyone else. People should "qualify" a unit before applying.

 

[bubbas]

Thanks Maddglasser,
i will reply in kind later.....right now my wife is about to finish up watching "The Next Top Model" and then I HAVE to watch "LOST" with her....LOL. Kind of ironic huh? LOL

 

[mesquitehunter]

bubbas, You still haven't answered my question from the other thread.
What coarse of action do you plan on taking?
Is this all talk and gripe but no action? Now that we've talked about this whats next?

Why don't you make a poll where we can vote on each issue! That should give you an idea of where to go next.Just a simple yes or no answer for each issue that you may have.

This horse has been beat enough. I think it's time to move on to phase 2 and start some action.

 

[billythekid]

maddglasser,

this is what you said.

"billy the signs are red and octagon shaped! They have 4 letters
S-T-O-P I am sure you can find one now. "

i just noticed this. don't understand the comments you make and why you make them. kind of offensive to some don't you think.....

aren't you the one that says "drought doesn't affect antler growth?" maybe you need to see the red sign that says S-T-O-P, you're a guide. you should know better.

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 00:39AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 00:24?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 00:23?AM (MST)

I know better gunslinger,,,,I know what was said. I make a living hunting here, I know what to expect!!!

Billy. they're on corners, and maybe a crosswalk nearby!

 

[mesquitehunter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 02:09AM (MST)[p]Hey Billy, don't go picking a fight where you'll be smashed.

Take it easy boy!!!!

I come from country where there is no is no rain and big horns.

 

[mesquitehunter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 02:16AM (MST)[p]Hey billy go crawl back in your crib!!!!! This conversation is for adults.

Hey bubba your boy billy is making you look bad!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bubbas]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 02:34AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 02:33 AM (MST)

First off, i do know Billy. He is a passionate guy like you guys, which is why you are butting heads. Arguments (the irrational ones) are a two edge sword, guys. But he is fair but he will argue in whatever manner you go whereas I try and take the mediator route as much as possible, regardless of my position. Someone has to on here!

Having said that, not to get off subject, but I will tell you that he is more qualified than anyone to make the drought comment. He has more evidence and TRUE FACTS than all on Arizona elk, including guides, general sportsmen, and The Department. You've seen where Ryan can do this with deer, well he can do it with elk. That sounds too much like the irrational posts I can't stand, i recognize that, but coming from a guy that relies on scientific evidence and fact....it is true about the drought affecting antler growth negatively. We are not saying trophies still can't be found but to say that the antler growth is NOT a fair amount lower percentage wise has been proven to be incorrect.

Now whether you feel that should be reason enough to be able to turn in a tag or not......well that was addressed in the original thread. Lets not rehash that here.

 

[mesquitehunter]

Who made him more qualified, YOU?

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 07:36AM (MST)[p]I say I am more qualified, because I said so, and Bubbas sorry I am right. I am more qualified for elk, deer, antelope, and sheep. If you say I am not your not open minded and stuck on your own foolish pride. Nobody here can tell anyone who is more qualified than another for ANYTHING!!!

Lets address something else here, YOU are not anyone's daddy here. You don't need to tell people how to answere or what not to answere. If you like what somebody has put down, GET OVER IT!
I believe what I do about the drought, I too have evidence, Billy has evidence I am sure, but BTK or billythebrain, is like you, only listening to what you guy's have to say! That is our entire arguement from the beginning!!!

 

[billythekid]

mesquite,

didn't go picken' no fight. just was making simple conversation with the mm.crew. albeit, i try to say things how i see them just like you and others. no problem with that. should i appoligize for hijacking bubbas thread? absolutely not. there are several other gunslingin' huntin fools on mm.com that are more sloped between their ears than level. i shouldn't feel bad for comments and either should they. i will discuss issues with you folks anytime. i shoot from the hip like you. this is not meant to turn into a pissin' match over the www. lets talk real issues. like progessing to an online draw, or having the freedom to turn your tag back post draw.

maddglasser,

i don't stupe below others just try to level with them. you started the childish comments.

constructive critisism of the azgfd or their policies is the only way to make change. it is apparent to me that several of you guys don't feel the same as several of "us." that should be fine. make a good argument and i will listen, however, i will argue my point just not as eloquently as bubbas.

bubbas,

thanks for so logically constructing a form where these issues can be discussed. i know your intentions are not to scrutizine any one person for their beliefs but to discuss the issues at hand in a pragmatic fashion. you have presented these issues in a way that no one other person has in the mm.az form. if you enjoy hunting in az., these issues will effect you sooner rather than later. it is obvious there are several different opinions, diversity is good. no one person here is coerced into thinking the way they do. mm.com is a great public form on which to address these issues, constructively critisize them, and move forward to resolve them any way we can.

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 01:06PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 11:06?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 11:01?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 10:56?AM (MST)

Looks like billythebrain aka Joe Biden truly loves EVERYTHING Bubbas aka Obama has to say. The only stupe you should understand is the one that ends with id and how it sounds with many of your comments.

I am now thinking Joe and Barrak are the same, but ole' gunslinger joe is the alter ego of bubba Barrak.( YES I know that is NOT how you spell BARACK but you get the point)

 

[spcheuvront]

Fellas;
I have followed these threads, and debate is very good to get every ones ideas out. Sometimes people need to get mad to fully express themselves.
What I would like to know from all this discussion, is when you all come up with a plan that meets the majority of the peoples
ideas, what and who will make the presentation to the AZG&FD?
I applaud your efforts to make the system better, but if nothing is going to be presented to the AZG&FD then you are just talking.
I put a topic for people to tell what they do for wildlife, and how they need your help with whatever they are involved with,
and I have had ZERO comments.
Steve Cheuvront

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 01:35PM (MST)[p]Barrak and Biden (aka gunslinger or billythebrain and Bubba) I will back out of this now and let you two figure out how to drive nails with no hammers as I am sure you can put your minds together and figure something out that satisfies both of you.
GOOD LUCK to anyone else who uses common sense!

I thought some might want to read this: as defined by websters..... fair- Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

 

[huntazido]

Everytime I forget why I stopped reading MM anymore, all I have to do is read a single thread and it turns into this crap. Way too many know-it-alls for liking. Later.